Discussion of ADRs,Analysts, and Accuracy: Does Cross‐Listing in the United States Improve a Firm's Information Environment and Increase Market Value?

Lang, Lins, and Miller [2002] investigate the relation between cross‐listing in the United States and information intermediation by analysts. The results suggest that cross‐listing in the United States increases analyst following and forecast accuracy and that both variables are associated with Tobin's Q. These findings are interesting and advance the cross‐listing literature in several ways. This discussion raises two issues. First, I highlight that the sources of cross‐listing effects are not obvious and are difficult to disentangle. To illustrate this point, I replicate the analysis using cross‐listed Canadian firms, for which mandated disclosures are held constant. Thus, if disclosure effects are important for documented cross‐listing effects, I expect to find no relation in the Canadian sample. The findings for forecast accuracy are consistent with this hypothesis. However, analyst following continues to be significantly higher for cross‐listed Canadian firms. These findings suggest that the sources of cross‐listing effects differ for analyst coverage and forecast accuracy. Second, I discuss the link between analyst variables, firm value, and cost of capital. As they are only tenuously related, I draw attention to some unresolved questions and areas for future research.     

Investor Protection,Investment Efficiency and Value: The Case of Cross‐Listed Firms

We examine the impact of improved investor protection due to cross‐listing on foreign firms’ investment decisions and firm value. While we find that cross‐listing increases firms’ capital expenditures and mergers and acquisitions activities, cross‐listed firms also invest more in research and development, make better acquisition decisions, and have higher profitability compared to non‐cross‐listed firms. Moreover, cross‐listing is associated with better cash utilization by foreign firms for investments. These improvements in investments and cash utilization are more pronounced for firms cross‐listed on US exchanges and for firms from countries with weak investor protection laws.     

The Impact of Cross‐Listing on the Home Market's Information Environment and Stock Price Efficiency

We empirically examine changes in information asymmetry and informational efficiency of cross‐listed stocks in their home market around a cross‐listing in the United States. We estimate intraday market microstructure measures of information asymmetry and price efficiency, and find that a U.S. cross‐listing significantly improves the quality of a firm's information environment and stock price efficiency in the home market. This improvement is stronger for cross‐listings that take place after the adoption of Sarbanes‐Oxley Act. Our results demonstrate that stricter disclosure from a U.S. cross‐listing is beneficial, in line with the legal and reputational bonding hypotheses.     

A Breakdown of the Valuation Effects of International Cross‐listing*

It is well known that cross‐listing domestic stocks in foreign exchanges has significant valuation effects on the listed company's shares. Using a sample of firms with dual shares, we explore the differential effects of cross‐listing on prices and we are able to separate the different sources of the benefits of cross‐listing. These sources include market segmentation, liquidity, and the bonding of controlling shareholders to lower expropriation of firm resources. Our results show that even though the market segmentation and bonding effects are both statistically significant, the economic significance of segmentation is more than double that of bonding. Furthermore, we document an economically and statistically significant increase in the liquidity of both share classes after the listing. Overall, our results explain why less and less firms are willing to list in the USA: Sarbanes Oxley has increased the cost of adopting better governance while its benefits are not substantial; and market segmentation has decreased significantly in the last years.     

The effect of the Sarbanes-Oxley act on non-US companies cross-listed in the US

This paper uses a natural experiment to measure market response to the adoption of the Sarbanes–Oxley Act (ʽʽSOX"). Because SOX applies to all US public companies, US-based studies have difficulty separating the effects of contemporaneous events. However, controlled analysis is available: SOX applies to some cross-listed firms (those listed on level 2 or 3), but not to others (listed on level 1 or 4). By comparing reactions of SOX-exposed foreign firms to reactions of otherwise similar SOX-unexposed foreign firms, we can test investor beliefs about the costs and benefits of SOX in a way that is not cleanly available for US-based studies. We find that stock prices of foreign firms subject to SOX declined (increased) significantly, compared to cross-listed firms not subject to SOX and to non-cross-listed firms, during key announcements indicating that SOX would (would not) fully apply to cross-listed issuers. In cross-sectional tests, high-disclosing firms and firms from high-disclosing countries experienced the strongest declines, while faster-growing companies experienced weaker declines. This evidence is consistent with the view that investors expected the Sarbanes–Oxley Act to have a net negative effect on cross-listed foreign companies, with high-disclosing and low-growth companies suffering larger net costs, and faster-growing companies suffering smaller costs, particularly when they are located in poorly governed countries.     

How Representative Are Firms That Are Cross‐Listed in the United States? An Analysis of Accounting Quality

We provide evidence on the characteristics of local generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) earnings for firms cross‐listing on U.S. exchanges relative to a matched sample of foreign firms currently not cross‐listing in the United States to investigate whether U.S. listing is associated with differences in accounting data reported in local markets. We find that cross‐listed firms differ in terms of the time‐series properties of earnings and accruals, and the degree of association between accounting data and share prices. Cross‐listed firms appear to be less aggressive in terms of earnings management and report accounting data that are more conservative, take account of bad news in a more timely manner, and are more strongly associated with share price. Furthermore, the differences appear to result partially from changes around cross‐listing and partially from differences in accounting quality before listing. We do not observe a similar pattern for firms cross‐listed on other non‐U.S. exchanges or on the U.S. over‐the‐counter market, suggesting a unique quality to cross‐listing on U.S. exchanges.     

Cross‐listings and dividend size and stability: evidence from China

We investigate the relationship between cross‐listings and dividend policy. We find that Chinese cross‐listed firms have lower and more stable dividends than their non‐cross‐listed peers, and that dividends become more stable the longer a company has been cross‐listed. We also find the strength of the cross‐listing/dividend policy relationship varies based on the market where the shares are cross‐listed. The strength of the relationship varies from B‐shares (least strong) to Hong Kong shares (stronger) to American Depository Receipts (strongest). Our results indicate cross‐listings may influence both dividend size and stability, and that this influence can vary by the type of cross‐listing.     

The Dark Side of International Cross‐Listing: Effects on Rival Firms at Home

We analyse the stock price impact of firms' US cross‐listing on home‐market rival firms. Using an empirical event study approach we find negative cumulative average abnormal returns for the rival firms around both the listing and announcement of listing dates. The evidence suggests both positive and negative spillover effects on rival firms, where the dominant effect is that investors see rivals at a relative disadvantage to the cross‐listing firm. As firms cross‐list in the US and commit to the increased disclosure and investor protection associated with the US listing, they are better able to take advantage of growth opportunities relative to their non cross‐listing counterparts, and this results in negative spillover effects on rival firms. Our results are consistent with the idea that firms cross‐list as a means to reduce agency costs of controlling shareholders and thus are able to exploit growth opportunities as they have better access to external finance.     

THE EFFECT OF CROSS‐LISTING ON TRADING VOLUME: REDUCING SEGMENTATION VERSUS SIGNALING INVESTOR PROTECTION

We examine the relation between cross‐listing on the U.S. and UK regulated and unregulated exchanges and trading volume for a sample of 500 foreign firms from 34 countries. We find that the increase in trading volume is a function of both reducing segmentation and signaling investor protection. In addition, we find that home market trading volume, firm size, firm returns, and analyst forecast accuracy are the major determinants of a firm's trading volume. We also show that U.S. and UK investors trade foreign securities that originate from low‐investor‐protection countries more than they trade those from high‐investor‐protection countries, which is consistent with the bonding hypothesis.     

The effect of cross‐listing on insider trading returns

Holding privileged positions within firms, insiders can acquire excessive private benefits based on their informational advantage. The bonding hypothesis suggests that this can be prevented when a firm is cross‐listed on an exchange with higher regulatory and legal costs compared with its home exchange. When cross‐listed insiders buy and sell shares, the returns earned are lower than in domestic firms. This difference is attributable to the increased shareholder protection in cross‐listed firms that constrains the extraction of private benefits, such that when cross‐listed insiders trade, they trade for non‐informational reasons.     

International Cross‐Listings and Subsequent Security‐Market Choices: Evidence from ADRs

We study the link between the attributes of American depositary receipt (ADR)‐listed firms and their post‐listing security‐market choices. We find that developed market firms are more likely to issue equity and debt than their emerging market counterparts. Furthermore, we find that large firms are more likely to issue debt and less likely to issue equity. When we examine locations where ADR firms raise their capital, we find that firms originating from countries where the protection of minority shareholders is weak are more likely to issue debt on their home markets and less likely to issue debt on international markets (excluding U.S. markets). Furthermore, ADR firms originating from developed (emerging market) countries are more (less) likely to issue their equity on their domestic markets and less (more) likely to issue equity on international markets (excluding U.S. markets).     

Does Accrual Management Impair the Performance of Earnings‐Based Valuation Models?

This study examines how accrual manipulations affect firm valuation in the years surrounding the passage of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX). We compare the absolute percentage pricing errors of RIM and DCF valuation models for a group of US firms suspected to have engaged in accrual manipulations to avoid a small loss or a small earnings decline vs. ‘Normal’ firms matched on industry, year and size. We find that RIM can better estimate intrinsic value than DCF for the matched Normal firms in the pre‐SOX period, but not so for accrual manipulators, and that SOX mitigates the harmful effect of accrual manipulations, completely eliminating the difference in RIM's accuracy advantage over DCF between Normal firms and accrual manipulators. As a further analysis, we redefine Suspect firms as real‐activity manipulators and find a significant across‐group difference in accuracy wedge in both sample periods, implying that SOX has prompted firms to favor real‐activity manipulations over accrual manipulations.     

Why Do Canadian Firms Cross‐list? The Flip Side of the Issue

We investigate the relation between managerial incentives and the decision to cross‐list by comparing Canadian firms cross‐listed on US stock exchanges to industry‐ and size‐matched control firms. After controlling for firm and ownership structure characteristics, we find a positive association between substantial holdings of vested options held by CEOs prior to cross‐listing and the decision to cross‐list. Further, firms managed by CEOs with substantial holdings of vested options exhibit positive announcement returns and negative post‐announcement long‐run returns. CEOs of cross‐listed firms seem to take advantage of the aforementioned market behaviour, because they abnormally exercise vested options and sell the proceeds during the year of listing only when their firms underperform during the subsequent year. In addition, there is a positive relation between substantial holdings of vested options and discretionary accruals during the year of listing, consistent with the view that CEOs manage earnings to keep stock prices at high levels. Overall, these results have significant implications for the cross‐listing literature, suggesting an association between cross‐listing and CEO incentives to maximize CEO private benefits.     

ADRs,Analysts, and Accuracy: Does Cross Listing in the United States Improve a Firm's Information Environment and Increase Market Value?

This paper investigates the relation between cross listing in the United States and the information environment of non‐U.S. firms. We find that firms that cross list on U.S. exchanges have greater analyst coverage and increased forecast accuracy than firms that are not cross listed. A time‐series analysis shows that a change in analyst coverage and forecast accuracy occurs around cross listing. We also document that firms that have more analyst coverage and higher forecast accuracy have higher valuations. Furthermore, the change in firm value around cross listing is correlated with changes in analyst following and forecast accuracy, suggesting that cross listing enhances firm value through its effect on the firm's information environment. Our findings support the hypothesis that cross‐listed firms have better information environments, which are associated with higher market valuations.     

What drives delistings of foreign firms from U.S. Exchanges?

We examine time dependency in the factors motivating delistings of foreign firms from major U.S. Exchanges over the period 1962–2006. For firms listing before Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), we find that governance has no significant effect on delisting but after SOX, it becomes one of the main forces driving delisting. For firms whose delisting decision is most likely attributable to SOX, we find they realize low benefits from listing – they originate from countries with strong home market governance, and from listing onward realize low trading volume, analyst coverage, and make little use of capital raising. Our results suggest that SOX has had a large influence on the benefits seek from a U.S. listing, leading firms from well governed countries and low capital raising needs to delist.     

Do Firms Decouple Corporate Governance Policy and Practice?

We test whether Thai listed firms with higher levels of good governance policy adoption are less likely to violate listing rules and laws designed to protect shareholders. Our results suggest that firms on average implement, substantively as opposed to symbolically, recommended governance policies, as violations occur less frequently among firms with higher governance policy adoption scores. However, we also find evidence of symbolic governance among a small group of ‘talk‐only’ firms that issue statements about governance while lagging in the adoption of policies related to shareholder rights and the board of directors.     

Determinants of Sovereign Wealth Fund Cross‐Border Investments

Using a sample of 1,590 purchases of stock by sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) in listed firms in 78 target countries between 1985 and 2011, we study the country‐level determinants of SWF cross‐border investment. We find that SWFs from countries with high levels of openness and economic development, but with less developed local capital markets, will make more cross‐country transactions, while target countries with higher levels of investor protection and more developed capital markets will attract more SWF investment. Our findings support the investment facilitation hypothesis, suggesting that SWFs act purely or principally as commercial investors facilitating cross‐border corporate investment.     

What Companies Need to Know About International Cross‐Listing

This article addresses four questions about cross‐listing by non‐U.S. companies on a U.S. stock exchange: Why do companies cross‐list? Does a U.S. listing increase firm value? If so, what are the sources of the increased valuation? And finally, how has the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) affected the value of a U.S. listing? Both managerial surveys and academic research show that companies list in the U.S. to increase visibility and share liquidity, to broaden their shareholder base, to gain access to cheaper financing and reduce the cost of capital, and, in some cases, to implement a global business strategy. Foreign companies also typically cross‐list after periods of strong market performance and experience a positive valuation effect around the time of listing, but then underperform the market in the period after the cross‐listing. On average, cross‐listed companies exhibit higher valuations than their home‐market peers, but with significant variation based on firm characteristics: The valuation premiums are larger for smaller companies with higher past sales growth, higher ROAs, and lower financial leverage. In the long run, the companies that show a permanent increase in valuation are those that succeed in expanding their U.S. shareholder base and improving their levels of shareholder protection. Finally, the evidence suggests that SOX, while perhaps deterring some would‐be overseas listings, has not seriously eroded the net benefits of a U.S. listing.     

Regulation and Bonding: The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Flow of International Listings

In this paper, we examine the economic impact of the Sarbanes‐Oxley Act (SOX) by analyzing foreign listing behavior onto U.S. and U.K. stock exchanges before and after the enactment of SOX in 2002. Using a sample of all listing events onto U.S. and U.K. exchanges from 1995–2006, we develop an exchange choice model that captures firm‐level, industry‐level, exchange‐level, and country‐level listing incentives, and test whether these listing preferences changed following the enactment of SOX. After controlling for firm characteristics and other economic determinants of these firms' exchange choice, we find that the listing preferences of large foreign firms choosing between U.S. exchanges and the London Stock Exchange's (LSE) Main Market did not change following the enactment of SOX. In contrast, we find that the likelihood of a U.S. listing among small foreign firms choosing between the NASDAQ and LSE's Alternative Investment Market decreased following the enactment of SOX. The negative effect among small firms is consistent with these marginal companies being less able to absorb the incremental costs associated with SOX compliance. The screening of smaller firms with weaker governance attributes from U.S. exchanges is consistent with the heightened governance costs imposed by SOX increasing the bonding‐related benefits of a U.S. listing.     

The effects of stricter regulation on the going public decision of small and knowledge-intensive firms

This paper studies the impact of increased securities regulation on the IPOs of small and high-tech, knowledge-intensive firms. We take advantage of the adoption of European SOX-like provisions, staggered at different dates across European countries, to test its influence on the going public decision. Starting from the population of European private firms during 1995–2012, we find that the likelihood of going public has decreased among small and high-tech, knowledge-intensive firms. Consistently, we document a 6% and 8.5% decrease in the industry-adjusted Tobin's Q of small and knowledge-intensive firms that go public after the regulatory change.